This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Oh, Good Lord,, you think funding was more important than people voting their own pocket books? Results matter and Walker has generated some good results which is what matters. Wherever Walker got his money is irrelevant because people are always going to vote their pocket books.

Coincidence! I always picture you carrying a pocket book.

Somedays I stop and ask myself if it is going to be worth the effort of chewing through the restraints.

X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?

Millions of dollars were spent to create the recall and what do you have to show for those results? The win was bigger last night than the original election. People will always vote their pocket books and that is what matters. Walker's results show great improvement in the state and that is what led to the overwhelming results last night.

Thanks for the link. "Conservanazis"? What a buncha whiney-babies. Some even resurrected the 2000 election. I'd say "unbelievably" if it weren't so believable as the "song that never ends." Never mind that it's 2012.

Scott Walker received reportedly 70% of his funding from out of state thus denying the voter of Wisconsin the right to determine their own governor. The practice is wrong no matter who does it or who benefits. Wrong is wrong.

They weren't denied anything. They were the ones who actually got to vote. Honestly, Risky, it seems like some of you would rather manufacture some other reason why Walker won instead of accepting or looking at the real reasons he did.

Libs complained about outside funding when Californians voted to ban gay marriage for the 2nd or 3rd time. I wonder if libs will do the same thing and put these scott walker contributors on some **** list like they did with the proponents of traditional marriage.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

X and Conservative, are you both saying that money doesn't factor into elections? Next you all are going to tell me that AIPAC has only piddling influence on the Hill.

If money from out of state doesn't mean squat, why was so much out of state money sent to the Walker campaign?

Well, as Joko pointed out, it wasn't just Walker who received out of state funds. Could it be, at all possible, that the people who voted in this election actually knew who they wanted to vote for and why? Is it really so hard to accept that maybe unions are just not the sacred cows you might like them to be?

If those people providing the 70% of funding voted then you might have a point.If those ads were votes you might have a point. However, providing political ads is not denying anyone the right to determine their own governor.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, James. If political ads aren't effective, why is sooooooo much money spent on advertising and campaigning?

Somedays I stop and ask myself if it is going to be worth the effort of chewing through the restraints.

Wonder what liberals are going to say using the money argument in supporting Obama this fall. His goal of raising a billion dollars is quite telling. Is Obama trying to buy the election like liberals claim Walker did in Wisconsin?

Libs complained about outside funding when Californians voted to ban gay marriage for the 2nd or 3rd time. I wonder if libs will do the same thing and put these scott walker contributors on some **** list like they did with the proponents of traditional marriage.

Cons went on and on about outside Union money going into referendums in other states. As always, it seems like it's only a problem when the other side does it.

Wonder what liberals are going to say using the money argument in supporting Obama this fall. His goal of raising a billion dollars is quite telling. Is Obama trying to buy the election like liberals claim Walker did in Wisconsin?